Morality: Objective or Relative?

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

First, definitions, beginning with the definition of "objective":

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

As an example of "objective morality", Mr. Spock, in Star Trek, was fond of saying, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

With that definition in play: Is there, or can there be, an objective standard of morality?

Second, "relativism":

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.

As an example, Captain Kirk responded to Spock on more than one occasion to the tune of, "I will not reduce right and wrong to a function of numbers!"; and at the end of the third movie, he told Spock, "Sometimes, the needs of the few, or the one outweigh the needs of the many".

With that definition in play: Is morality a strictly relative concept and can it be anything other than a relative concept?

And with both of those definitions in play:

If you were to stipulate an objective standard of morality, what would it look like?

 

[metis]

I tend to think that morality is only objective up to the point of that which is genetic to our species, although even that may differ from person to person.

 

[Mycroft]

It's neither and both.

There are objective moralities such as murder, rape, child abuse and so on. These are all things that, in the name of the wellbeing of mankind, we have all agreed are morally inappropriate because they fundamentally harm the welfare of human survival. Cavemen had very rough ideas about murder being morally inappropriate long before civilisation got started because, in their tribal minds, the loss of one man meant increased workload/hunting for everyone else, or that a particular skill might be lost.

But there is also subjective morality. The American man with one wife might consider the Arab man with many wives to be immoral, and the Arab man might consider the American man to be weird for not getting as much booty as he possibly can. In either case, the moralities of the Arab and the American are normal relative to the culture and societies that they have come from.

 

[LuisDantas]

With that definition in play: Is there, or can there be, an objective standard of morality?

There is and there must be, otherwise morality would be of very little meaning or purpose. But perhaps it is not objective in the way that you mean it.

Morality is unavoidably conditioned both by external circunstances (mainly social and economic) and by the mental and cognitive circunstances of the moral agent itself.

All the same, it is still objective in that for any given set of circunstances and any given person the available choices settle into clear levels of moral validity, dependent mainly on the levels of transparency, sustainability and mutual cooperation that they support or sabotage.

Second, "relativism":

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.

As an example, Captain Kirk responded to Spock on more than one occasion to the tune of, "I will not reduce right and wrong to a function of numbers!"; and at the end of the third movie, he told Spock, "Sometimes, the needs of the few, or the one outweigh the needs of the many".

With that definition in play: Is morality a strictly relative concept and can it be anything other than a relative concept?

No, morality is never relative, although many attempt to show otherwise. It is nearly always strongly conditioned and restricted when it comes to actual realistic choices, though.

And with both of those definitions in play:

If you were to stipulate an objective standard of morality, what would it look like?

Attempt to understand the needs of the whole ecosystem in as many levels as you can reasonably attain.

Be aware and accepting that your calls will at least occasionally be misguided, and that course corrections are a necessary part of life.

Information is the lifeblood of moral decisions. Attempting to mislead or to deny information from people who need that information to make decisions that are meaningful for them is in itself unethical.

It is often impossible to reconcile the desires of people. That must be accepted and for that reason good will must be always be nurtured. Being apart or in bad terms with others is inherently destructive and must be avoided except when greater immediate damage is to be expected.

Morality is destroyed when people are pushed beyond their capability of making concessions. Scarcity is therefore an enemy of sentient beings, and growth (which demands resources) is in essence asking everyone else to give yourself an irreversible boon at their own expense. Don't ever think of yourself, nor of your community, as inherently more deserving than anyone else.

(This last paragraph is one reason why I oppose taking nations very seriously)

 

[Skwim]

Objective morality, decreed morality---a standard of morality---obviously shows up in such places as the Bible. Relative morality would cover all other values and principles of conduct, or everything else where no decreed morality is adopted.

 

[xkatz]

Objective. There are certain situations in which it may be relative, but to say that the entirety of morality is relatively is baseless and not grounded in reality IMHO.

 

[LuisDantas]

Objective morality, decreed morality---a standard of morality---obviously shows up in such places as the Bible. Relative morality would cover all other values and principles of conduct, or everything else where no decreed morality is adopted.

If you see decreed morality as synonimous with objective morality, then I think you will always be disappointed by it.

I think it is misleading to equate the two, though.

 

[Skwim]

If you see decreed morality as synonimous with objective morality, then I think you will always be disappointed by it.

I think it is misleading to equate the two, though.

Where else would objective morality come from?

 

[LuisDantas]

Where else would objective morality come from?

From objective parameters of the possibilities of the world itself. For instance, given the specific possibilities of food production in a given area, several moral parameters are solidly established, which by their turn inform the morality of many choices, particularly those involving population growth and settlement, but also social roles and work ethics.

 

[Skwim]

From objective parameters of the possibilities of the world itself. For instance, given the specific possibilities of food production in a given area, several moral parameters are solidly established, which by their turn inform the morality of many choices, particularly those involving population growth and settlement, but also social roles and work ethics.

And how would these parameters be established if not by decree?

 

[LuisDantas]

And how would these parameters be established if not by decree?

Eh. Decrees are worthless far as morarility goes. Worse than worthless, actually. They cloud the real issues and parameters.

Instead, moral parameters can only be learned by actually researching the reality of facts to the best of our ability, including by seeking trustworthy sources to expand our knowledge indirectly and employing measures to test and correct that knowledge.

In short, by using an scientific approach.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

And how would these parameters be established if not by decree?

Numbers can help with this. (No, not the Book of Numbers in the Holy Bible), but numbers themselves.

If we are trapped on an island for 4 days but have only 3 days of food, then everyone eats 3/4 rations and we all survive to be rescued. No one has to go hungry and no one has to die that another live.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Where else would objective morality come from?

Read, again, the definition of "objective" which is not the same as the definition of "decreed", "legislated", etc.

 

[Skwim]

Eh. Decrees are worthless far as morarility goes. Worse than worthless, actually.

I agree, which is why the absolutes set forth in the Bible, such as sins, brook no subjective considerations. They are statements of what is absolutely wrong, in effect, decrees.

Objective morality only derives meaning from its contrast to subjective morality.

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not true according to a subjective perspective, but factually true. There is no latitude for intervening circumstances. X is always right / wrong, no matter what.

Subjective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments are derived from a subjective perspective. There is latitude for intervening circumstances. X may be right / wrong.

The fact under-girding any moral principle is either a declared fact, such as a pronouncement from god, or one akin to the definition Stephen Jay Gould gives the scientific fact:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Notice that while the "Gould fact" leaves room for possible amendment, small as it may be, those facts coming from god leave absolutely no room, and can be considered decrees: "God said it so it has to be the case, i.e. a fact."

So, in as much as the only "fact" upon which objective morality rests can be an absolute fact---the "Gould fact" leaving room for amendment and therefore not qualifying---it is a decreed fact.

Therefore, to answer the OP's questions.

Q. Is there, or can there be, an objective standard of morality?

A. Sure. God's declarations of absolute right and wrong.


Q. Is morality a strictly relative concept and can it be anything other than a relative concept?

A. No. See objective morality.


Q. If you were to stipulate an objective standard of morality, what would it look like?

A. See explanation above. It would be a decree.​

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, which is why the absolutes set forth in the Bible, such as sins, brook no subjective considerations. They are statements of what is absolutely wrong, in effect, decrees.

Indeed. I find Christianity a very exotic religion, despite having been raised in a society that basically assumes adherence to it unless one makes a point of denying it, largely because it seems to ineffective, even all-out confused, when it comes to encouraging morality. It often seems to lack a good grasp of the concept, or even to be purposefully avoiding its actualization.

Objective morality only derives meaning from its contrast to subjective morality.

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not true according to a subjective perspective, but factually true. There is no latitude for intervening circumstances. X is always right / wrong, no matter what.

If by "No matter what" you mean that circunstances do not matter, then by that measure morality is either self-contradictory, empty, or impossible to delimit. Circunstances are a necessary part of moral decisions, because they shape the consequences (both actual and expected).

Subjective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments are derived from a subjective perspective. There is latitude for intervening circumstances. X may be right / wrong.

That, I feel, is something of a misunderstanding. Circunstances are simply necessary for moral evaluations. It does not follow that morality is dependent on the subject and therefore subjective.

Morality must be informed by available data, which is to say by circunstances, and it is limited by physical and cognitive resources, but it is not subjective. At least not by my understanding of the word.

The fact under-girding any moral principle is either a declared fact, such as a pronouncement from god, or one akin to the definition Stephen Jay Gould gives the scientific fact:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

"Declared" facts, of course, are basically fiction, so I will take the second option.

Notice that while the "Gould fact" leaves room for possible amendment, small as it may be, those facts coming from god leave absolutely no room, and can be considered decrees: "God said it so it has to be the case, i.e. a fact."

Indeed, that is how I see moral facts as well.

Just as, say, natural sciences are not subjective despite being subject to that technically provisional understanding of facts, the same holds true to morality for much the same reasons.

It just turns out that humanity is rather inept at and arguably adverse to taking morality seriously. Not out of any flaw of morality itself.

As for God, well, I just don't see how it could possibly be a source of any useful morality. A tool for reflection or illustration of several varieties of it, sure, for those so inclined.

But as a source? No can do. That is just not what the idea of God serves for. It is odd that some people disagree.

So, in as much as the only "fact" upon which objective morality rests can be an absolute fact---the "Gould fact" leaving room for amendment and therefore not qualifying---it is a decreed fact.

I think this is the source of some confusion. Morality no more needs "absolute" facts than science does.

Therefore, to answer the OP's questions.

Q. Is there, or can there be, an objective standard of morality?

A. Sure. God's declarations of absolute right and wrong.​

With the proviso that they are useless and meaningless for that purpose or any other, you mean?

Q. Is morality a strictly relative concept and can it be anything other than a relative concept?

A. No. See objective morality.

As I hope to have made clear, I think you are mistaken here, by holding morality to an unreasonably restrictive standard of what "objectivity" would be.

Q. If you were to stipulate an objective standard of morality, what would it look like?

A. See explanation above. It would be a decree.

Except that decrees are useless for any kind of functional morality?

 

[McBell]

Morality: Objective or Relative?

Yes.

Morality is only objective on an individual level.
And even then it is not as common as one might think.

 

[McBell]

Q. Is there, or can there be, an objective standard of morality?

A. Sure. God's declarations of absolute right and wrong.​

​

Making a claim does not make the claim objective.

Q. Is morality a strictly relative concept and can it be anything other than a relative concept?

A. No. See objective morality.

Your answer to objective morality does not hold water.

Q. If you were to stipulate an objective standard of morality, what would it look like?

A. See explanation above. It would be a decree.

Making a claim does not make the claim objective.
Even if you call said claim a "decree"

 

[McBell]

There are objective moralities such as murder, rape, child abuse and so on.

Except that these are not as objectively immoral as you would like to think.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except that these are not as objectively immoral as you would like to think.

How are they not?

 

[McBell]

How are they not?

How many murders happen each day world wide?
How many rapes?
How many children abused?

To claim all people think them immoral is clearly not in evidence.

Simply because a large number of people agree that they are immoral does not make them objectively immoral.